From: Asmus Freytag (email@example.com)
Date: Fri Jan 26 2007 - 15:31:06 CST
On 1/26/2007 12:41 PM, Ruszlan Gaszanov wrote:
> Ok, consider '+AOY-' <U+ACs-00E6> vs. 'ae' and '+AVM-' <U+ACs-0153> vs. 'oe' for instance. In Latin, both are just stylistic variations. In Nordic languages, '+AOY-' <U+ACs-00E6> is a distinct letter. In French, '+AVM-' <U+ACs-0153> ligature glyph is strongly preferred over 'oe' in most words (unless can't be rendered by the system), but may be considered incorrect in some cases (mostly borrowed words). In English typography, those ligature glyphs are usually preferred (though not considered mandatory) in unaltered French and Latin words (e.g. 'chef-d'+AVM-uvre', 'encyclop+AOY-dia'), but shouldn't be used in most other cases (e.g. 'does', 'maestro'). In proper names, for instance, both '+AOY-' and 'ae' forms are ok for those of Latin origin, but '+AOY-' in a Danish name shouldn't be rendered as 'ae' and 'ae' in an Italian name shouldn't be rendered as '+AOY-'.
If all you are doing is trying to argue that "leave ligatures to the
font" is not workable except for the fi (or st) ligature when used in
English, you won't draw an argument from me. People who have advocated
this position were completely ignorant of +ACo-orthographic+ACo- rules for the
use of ligatures in other languages. (And it's taken many discussions on
this list to get them to acknowledge that).
However, from that insight to the particular mechanisms of encoding that
you advance is a large step, and I don't follow you there.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Jan 26 2007 - 15:32:45 CST